Roadside assets, such as public infrastructure assets, such as speed management posts, reflector posts, roadside barriers and the like are installed and subsequently repaired and maintained over long periods of time.
Now, D1 (US 20080086391 A1—MAYNARD), being exemplary of the current state of the art, discloses a system for impromptu asset tracking for maintenance scheduling. Specifically, D1 refers to the tracking of movable asset types such as graders, levelers, dozers, saws, debris transportation vehicles, diggers, pavers, concrete trucks, supply trucks, cranes, tools, service trucks, compressors and so on and describes examples of the system used in the construction industry (specifically building a shopping mall) for monitoring asset maintenance and unauthorised use of such assets.
For example, D1, in paragraphs 481-482 refers to a reporting device that is mounted to a moveable asset so as to record characteristics of the moveable asset such as by, for example, recording the position of the moveable asset, and having a diagnostic evaluator such as a mileage indicator, a speedometer, a tachometer, an oil pressure indicator, a wheel pressure indicator, a hydraulic indicator, an engine time monitor, and the like to monitor and diagnose the asset so as to be able to schedule maintenance and detect unauthorised use of the moveable asset.
As such, D1 is not suited for fixed roadside asset. In this regard, for roadside assets, councils often times have poor documentation of such roadside asset installations and may therefore not have information relating to the specific location, type, condition and value of each roadside asset.
As such, it would be advantageous to have the ability to identify roadside asset installations.
In this regard, the best D1 offers in terms of identifying (moveable) assets is by scanning a barcode, or inputting a chassis VIN number or the like (see paragraph 488 of D1).
However, D1 is not suited for identifying roadside assets because roadside assets do not uniformly comprise such barcodes, VIN numbers and the like.
As such, it would be advantageous to have the ability to automate the identification of roadside assets in a manner that does not rely on barcodes and the like.
Furthermore, councils may not be aware of roadside assets that have been removed and require replacement or that have been damaged and require maintenance.
As such, it would be advantageous to have the ability to automate the detection of missing roadside assets.
Furthermore, if an asset is to be replaced, such as a speed limit management post, the specific speed limit management post may require installation at a particular location adjacent the road and specify a particular speed. In this manner, the council may not know the previously utilised specific location or the specific speed limit displayed by the speed limit management post. As such, were the speed limit management post replaced, it may be installed in the incorrect location, or with the incorrect speed limit.
As such, it would be advantageous to have a historical record of installed roadside assets, including their characteristics, such as, for example for speed management signs, their locations, their respective speed limits and the like.
Furthermore, councils have no quality control mechanisms for roadside maintenance, such as verge grass cutting other than manual inspections. For example, at least five times a year, the council may deploy grass cutters to cut grass adjacent roads which may involve multiple cutters at differing times. However, councils are unable to control the quality of the grass cutting, such as whether the grass has been cut, whether the grass has been cut to the correct height, whether the grass has been cut sufficiently proximate roadside assets and the like. Indeed, the only mechanism for councils to ensure quality is by way of manual inspection which is not feasible.
As such, it would be advantageous to have means for monitoring the quality of roadside maintenance.
Furthermore, many councils across Australia are experiencing a backlog of infrastructure renewal and there have been recommendations for the funding of asset management programs for councils. In this regard, councils need to allocate funding for roadside asset maintenance so as to request funding from the federal government, allocate rates and the like. However, councils often times do not know the extent of their asset inventory, or the value of the assets of their inventory. In this manner, councils cannot accurately calculate depreciation costs, replacement costs and the like.
D2 (US 20080086391 A1—MAYNARD) discloses a system that receives fixed asset data and then predicts a maintenance plan based on various statistical factors, such as weather, asset type failure rates and the like.
As such, D2 fails to offer the above described advantages of the ability to identify roadside asset installations, the ability to automate the identification of roadside assets in a manner that does not rely on barcodes and the like, the ability to automate the detection of missing roadside assets, the ability to have a historical record of installed roadside assets, including their characteristics, such as, for example for speed management signs, their locations, their respective speed limits and the like.
It is to be understood that, if any prior art information is referred to herein, such reference does not constitute an admission that the information forms part of the common general knowledge in the art, in Australia or any other country.